Posted on 07/14/2004 2:02:19 PM PDT by Taka No Kimi
Upon reading and rereading Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings, I find comparison of the two tempting, for both of these novels display firm and compelling visions regarding personal philosophy and the rejection of Evil. One of the most unique aspects of Atlas Shrugged is its rational definition of Good and Evil based on the principles of Objectivism. Good is that which is free, independent, thinking, and productive. Evil is that which attempts to feed upon others through false premises. But fundamentally Good is strong and Evil is weak, for Evil can only perpetuate itself through the consent of the Good who allow themselves to shoulder the burden. However unnoticeable and benign that burden may seem at first, by accepting it the Good have fallen into a trap and open themselves to a situation which they cannot win. The only way to conquer Evil is to refuse to carry it.
John Galt, the protagonist and embodiment of Objectivism, is the leader of the war against Evil, a ringleader of a strike in which those shouldering the burdens of Evil shrug them off and step aside to watch the world collapse in order that they may rebuild it in a new age of freedom.
The Lord of the Rings, by contrast, takes place in a mythological age where godlike beings still exist. The last of them to maintain a presence in Middle Earth is Sauron, who is not weak at all but incredibly powerful. Sauron's Evil cannot be ignored: it can enslave you or kill you no matter where you try to run. Evil must be fought and eradicated.
Only Tom Bombadil, the perfectly self-realized being, is uninfluenced by Sauron's Evil. Perhaps he represents the Objectivist ideal in a nonhuman sense, but he teaches us no real lesson. The true leader of the war against Evil is Gandalf, who points out that armed battle against Sauron cannot succeed unless his chief weapon is destroyed.
The chief weapon of Evil in Atlas Shrugged is a collection of deceitful propaganda bearing the names of "Brotherly Love," "Public Welfare," and "Original Sin." These concepts are exploited by Evil to generate a sense of guilt in the Good and to convince them of the necessity to support the incompetent and the fraudulent. When these weapons fail, those who have ridden the unsuspecting into positions of power resort to compulsion and thuggery. As effective as these weapons are against those who are conditioned to listen to them, their effectiveness vanish upon recognition of what they are.
In The Lord of the Rings, the chief weapon of Evil is the Ring. Made by Sauron, the Ring contains much of his raw power, and to a certain extent has a sense of will. The Ring was originally lost at a time when Men and Elves were powerful enough for a decisive battle to take place. But it has since reappeared, and is attempting to return to its maker.
Because of the nature of the Ring, it is the key to the conquest of Sauron. But the Ring itself cannot be used. Weaker minds that use the Ring are drawn to Sauron as thralls, and more powerful minds that use the Ring—while they may conquer Sauron in war—eventually only become his shadow. Nor can the Ring be hidden. It must be destroyed, for that is the only way to prevent Sauron from regaining it; once he did so, there would be no stopping him. Yet such is the power of the Ring that none who holds it could possibly bring himself to destroy it.
What the Ring hadn't counted upon, in its attempt to return to its master, is its encounter with simple yet extremely tough minds: Gollum, Bilbo, and eventually Frodo and Sam. Not only do they resist the call to return to Sauron, they also resist using the Ring as a weapon. In addition, they have the strength and tenacity to hold the ring without being fully destroyed by it. Because of that, the Ring's ends are frustrated. More on that later.
The more powerful the Good, the greater the Evil they can become through the Ring. Characters such as Gandalf and Galadriel wisely refuse the Ring, for while they know they are strong enough to use it to overthrow Sauron and establish "benevolent" realms, they also know that their rule would be false and Evil.
Saruman, a great and wise wizard at one time more powerful the Gandalf, lusts after the Ring but never obtains it. He succumbs to Evil and in his bid to rival Sauron and establish his own realm merely ends up a twisted, embittered wreck. Compare him to Robert Stadler, the great scientist and mentor of John Galt who compromises himself to serve Evil and ends up perishing in a pathetic attempt to extort the world with violence.
Boromir is the human who advocates use of the Ring, and over time the hold of the Ring grows on him, until violently he attempts to force Frodo to turn it over. Frodo escapes, but Boromir regains his presence of mind, realizes what the Ring has done to him, repents the Evil, and atones for his failure. Hank Rearden believes that he can shoulder the burden of Evil and somehow win against it, but when he finally realizes the extent to which he is actually fueling that Evil, he repents and drops the burden.
The central characters of The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged, Frodo and Dagny, represent the core of incredible courage in the novels. Both bear unbearable burdens, and it is heartbreaking to see them struggle through self-imposed missions which must ultimately fail. Frodo bears his burden because he knows he must; Dagny bears hers because she cannot bring herself to release it. But at the same time, their failure is their triumph, for no others can match their accomplishments.
Although Frodo cannot himself cast the Ring into the Cracks of Doom which would destroy it, he does what no other can by actually carrying the Ring that far. Gollum intervenes through his unbreakable determination not to surrender the Ring to anyone. He himself, through accident or otherwise, falls into the Cracks of Doom with the Ring and breaks the power of Sauron. Nonetheless, in the end, all surviving characters that have dealt directly with the Ring, no matter how powerful they are, are wounded beyond measure, and must journey West for the ultimate healing and leave others to bring about the new age.
Dagny Taggart retains possession of her railroad, her work, and her integrity longer than any other. Out of love for her and the knowledge that she must eventually give up, John Galt remains near her and is captured by the enemy as a result. Dagny, with the aid of the strikers, rescues him; it is at that point that she is ready to witness the final collapse and return with him to rebuild the true civilization. Wounds occur, but however difficult their struggles, those who have dropped their burdens find a new sense of freedom, hope, and confidence, and after the destruction of Evil bring about the new age themselves.
It is perhaps no accident that, although written independently, both novels were written at about the same period of time. Evil in both novels is that which enslaves. In The Lord of the Rings to fight Evil requires bearing unbearable burdens, whereas in Atlas Shrugged the way to fight is to shrug them off. The Lord of the Rings is a timeless work, set in a timeless period, whereas Atlas Shrugged speaks to the Industrial Age using 20th century metaphors. Both novels offer an astonishing array of characters with distinct ways of dealing with Evil.
In the end, after the downfall of Sauron, there is no strong Evil left, and it remains up to Men to devise the lesser Evil described in Atlas Shrugged. For that reason, I like to consider Atlas Shrugged as a sequel to The Lord of the Rings.
Too true, too true!
Bump for future reference.
I can't be the only libertarian who hasn't read Rand.
Hmmm...I must disagree on a couple of points. First, Smaug did NOT work hard to gain his wealth - The dwarves, Thorin's family and so forth, were the ones who created the treasure - which Smaug then proceeded to take by force from the creators. How different is this to the mentality and methods of the "looters" in Atlas Shrugged? Also, I doubt Ayn Rand would have preferred Mordor, Isengard and all their technology to the "masses of little people". She was a technology lover and Tolkien a Luddite, but Sauron and Saruman sought to use their technology to rule people by force, something Rand disapproved of. Remember also that the ring-making "technology" was invented by the Elves for nonviolent purposes but stolen by Sauron to make the One Ring, a weapon of control - Compare this to Project X, invented by State scientists using methods and theories invented by Dr. Stadler just for pure science's sake. Just my brain running off on "analysis" mode...
Welll, I was being tongue-in-cheek re Smaug as in much of my comment, but I doubt she'd have liked the little folks.
As to the technology, it reminds me of The Fountainhead where the hero rails against his professors for only using classical designs instead of using the new materials, tech, etc to apply new concepts. I think of Sauron's rings as being his own usage and spells. After all the Elvish ones weren't control oriented, so his was innovative. As to Project X, well, Sauron did most of his own work on magic items. As to his orcisah forges and weapons smiths, how diufferent is that from the Gondorian arsenals? NB - As an odd note, bear in mind that had Sauron been absent, it is likely the Goblins/orcs woul dbe hunted slowly to extinction. Hard to see the shire happily accepting Orcish refugees....
Sorry about my misunderstanding. I've never read The Fountainhead - only Atlas Shrugged and Anthem and a few essays - so I guess I didn't see where you were coming from.
Not a prob. I thought it was a great posting article, I just think they're so dfferent that any comparison may as well be a little humourous.
Fountinhead is not without it's charms allthough I found some scenes less pleasant then Atlas Shrugged.
Tolkien and Rand were talking about different evils, so the struggles they wrote about were entirely different. I'm not sure what Tolkien thought of altruism, but Rand thought it was destroying the world. And I'm not sure what Tolkien thought about individualism, but Rand thought it was the antidote to the world's problems. So these are two very different works, by very different authors, with very different messages.
The strict-constructionists among us (myself included) understand that our diminished Constitution will never be reinstituted at the ballot box. No, I'm not voting for Kerry to hasten a purifying revolution, I'm just saying that voting for GWB isn't going to delay the inevitable by all that much.
Don't do it, it'll ruin your life. Waaay too much reality. Most of it ugly.
If I recall from reading stuff written by folks in her inner circle, she wasn't all that easy to get along with. Too much of that Hero Worship stuff made expectations too high. I mean, have you ever seen or listened to Peikoff? (Hint: rhymes with fork) This cat living up to the expectations of John Galt or Hank Reardon were next to nill. Who is John Galt? Not Peikoff, that's for sure. Martha Stewart might have gotten along with her, though. Except I can't see her taking Miss Rand on the railroad tracks.
bookmark
The simple fact that her philosophy was void of humor is evident of the above. She created a Platonic "World of The Forms" just like the one she so scathingly criticized.
However, I must admit when it comes to logic and defining reality, she did quite a good job. The axioms of the philosophy are solid, however Aristotlean. And her writings on Capitalism and ideas about government are unsurpassed in our age. It's just that her idea of everyday life was unrealistic. People require relaxation, humor, and a little non-sense to be their best and be their most productive. She didn't get this at all.
Rational selfishness? Sure, I'll buy it. But, you gotta let me have a cold beer and veg on some TV once in a while.
This is consistent with the philosophy. More pointedly, it's a value judgement.
When Rand talked of sacrifice she meant the surrender of a value for the sake of a lesser value or nonvalue. If a man values his country more than his life, it is indeed, not a sacrifice. Jumping on a grenade to save your buddy is a sacrifice.
Simply put, Ayn Rand was an orc.
not COMPLETELY different.
The Scouring of the Shire shows, in micro, what Tolkien was getting at with his story. It wasn't really the unshakeable evil of the orc that was the threat, it was the evil of men who wished to ruin and hold sway over others, but for no other reason than they deem themselves superior. Saruman was an example of this. THe RIng but a symbol of the corruption of power, ESPECIALLY absolute power.
Also look at how socialist "Sharky" and his band of thugs had made the Shire, when before it was a place damn near without authority(except a ceremonial Mayor and the shiriffs) and where a hobbit had his own wealth and enjoyed a good smoke and a good meal. Sharky turned it into a socialist heaven, with machines not so much representing technology, but representing Saruman(or any evil one) and his will to dominate and corrupt and destroy.
For Rand, perhaps she worshipped a kind of power, but it was not the power over other men. On this, Tolkien and Rand would have agreed.
Heeeeey...Rule No. 1: Don't insult the author of Taka no Kimi's favorite book.
Rule No. 2: Don't personally attack people.
Rule No. 3: Don't say anything negative to me! BWAHAHA!!!
(Tongue firmly in cheek)
Bump for later reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.